- From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 02:35:24 +0200
- To: Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>
- CC: "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
On 01/23/2013 02:33 AM, Olli Pettay wrote: > On 01/23/2013 01:42 AM, Glen Shires wrote: >> I agree that JSON syntax may be more useful than a DOM tree. Since there is some uncertainty, I agree that dropping the attribute from the spec has >> merit. >> >> So I'd like to propose this as errata: >> >> emma attribute >> This attribute should return "undefined". > null > (I don't understand why it would return undefined) > > Unless you actually mean the property isn't there at all if EMMA isn't supported? > >> [Editor note: The group has discussed various options for the emma syntax, including XML/DOM and JSON syntax.] >> >> >> If that's not acceptable, then I'd be fine with having .emma return null in the case where the recognizer does not supply EMMA... >> >> emma attribute >> EMMA 1.0 representation of this result. [EMMA] The contents of this result could vary across user agents and recognition engines, but all >> implementations must expose a valid XML document complete with EMMA namespace, or if the recognizer does not supply EMMA then the user agent may >> return null. User agent implementations for recognizers that supply EMMA must contain all annotations and content generated by the recognition >> resources utilized for recognition, except where infeasible due to conflicting attributes. The user agent may add additional annotations to provide a >> richer result for the developer. >> >> If there's no disagreement, I'll update the errata on Feb 4. >> Glen >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi <mailto:Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>> wrote: >> >> On 01/20/2013 05:32 AM, Glen Shires wrote: >> >> We've found that generating a "simple" XML/DOM wrapper of the results for the SpeechRecognitionEvent emma attribute is more challenging to >> implement >> than originally thought. I propose that the UA may return undefined for implementations in which the speech recognition engine does not supply >> emma. >> In this case, emma doesn't provide any additional information than is already available via the API in the results attribute. >> >> Specifically, I propose adding the phrase: ", or if the recognizer does not supply EMMA then the user agent may return undefined." >> >> >> >> I think returning null would make more sense and be compatible with XHR. Though I'm not a fan of sort-of-optional features. Could we even drop the >> property from v1? But, I'm not against having .emma just returning null for now. >> >> >> Also, it would be nice if we had JSON syntax for EMMA. Accessing JS object tree would be more natural than DOM tree. >> This was discussed during XG, but don't recall if MMI WG was asked to think about JSON version of EMMA. >> >> -Olli >> >> >> >> Here it is in context [1] ... >> >> emma attribute >> EMMA 1.0 representation of this result. [EMMA] The contents of this result could vary across user agents and recognition engines, but all >> implementations must expose a valid XML document complete with EMMA namespace, or if the recognizer does not supply EMMA then the user agent >> may >> return undefined. User agent implementations for recognizers that supply EMMA must contain all annotations and content generated by the >> recognition >> resources utilized for recognition, except where infeasible due to conflicting attributes. The user agent may add additional annotations to >> provide a >> richer result for the developer. >> >> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/speech-__api/raw-file/tip/speechapi.__html#dfn-emma >> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/speech-api/raw-file/tip/speechapi.html#dfn-emma> >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 00:35:55 UTC